Drug safety assessment by machine learning models

References

• Blinova, K., Q. Dang, D. Millard, G. Smith, J. Pierson, L. Guo, M. Brock, H. R. Lu, U. Kraushaar, H. Zeng, et al. 2018. International multisite study of human-induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes for drug proarrhythmic potential assessment. Cell Reports 24 (13):3582–3592. doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2018.08.079.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breiman, L. 1996. Bagging predictors. Machine Learning 24 (2):123–140. doi:10.1007/BF00058655.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breiman, L. 2001. Random Forests. Machine Learning 45 (1):5–32. doi:10.1023/A:1010933404324.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cavero, I., and W. Crumb. 2005. ICH S7B draft guideline on the non-clinical strategy for testing delayed cardiac repolarisation risk of drugs: A critical analysis. Expert Opinion on Drug Safety 4 (3):509–530. doi:10.1517/14740338.4.3.509.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Colatsky, T., B. Fermini, G. Gintant, J. B. Pierson, P. Sager, Y. Sekino, D. G. Strauss, and N. Stockbridge. 2016. The comprehensive in vitro proarrhythmia assay (cipa) initiative - Update on progress. Journal of Pharmacological and Toxicological Methods 81:15–20. doi:10.1016/j.vascn.2016.06.002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Couronné, R., P. Probst, and A.-L. Boulesteix. 2018. Random forest versus logistic regression: A Large-scale Benchmark Experiment. BMC Bioinformatics 19 (1). doi:10.1186/s12859-018-2264-5.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Crumb, W. J., Jr, J. Vicente, L. Johannesen, and D. G. Strauss. 2016. An evaluation of 30 clinical drugs against the comprehensive in vitro proarrhythmia assay (CiPA) proposed ion channel panel. Journal of Pharmacological and Toxicological Methods 81:251–262. doi:10.1016/j.vascn.2016.03.009.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fermini, B., J. C. Hancox, N. Abi-Gerges, M. Bridgland-Taylor, K. W. Chaudhary, T. Colatsky, K. Correll, W. Crumb, B. Damiano, G. Erdemli, et al. 2016. A new perspective in the field of cardiac safety testing through the comprehensive in vitro proarrhythmia assay paradigm. Journal of Biomolecular Screening 21 (1):1–11. doi:10.1177/1087057115594589.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Foster-Burns, J., and M. N. Xi. 2022. Prediction of drug-induced tdp risks using machine learning and rabbit ventricular wedge assay. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Analysis 5 (10). doi:10.47191/ijmra/v5-i10-39.
   Google Scholar
• Gintant, G. 2011. An evaluation of hERG current assay performance: Translating preclinical safety studies to clinical QT prolongation. Pharmacology and Therapeutics 129 (2):109–119. doi:10.1016/j.pharmthera.2010.08.008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hastie, T., R. Tibshirani, and J. Friedman. 2009. The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and prediction, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• Hwang, B., J. H. Lee, and D. Bang. 2018. Single-cell RNA sequencing technologies and bioinformatics pipelines. Experimental & Molecular Medicine 50:96. doi:10.1038/s12276-018-0071-8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James, G., D. Witten, T. Hastie, and R. Tibshirani. 2021. An introduction to statistical learning. New York City: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Johannesen, L., J. Vicente, J. W. Mason, C. Erato, C. Sanabria, K. Waite-Labott, M. Hong, J. Lin, P. Guo, A. Mutlib, et al. 2016. Late sodium current block for drug-induced long QT syndrome: Results from a prospective clinical trial. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 99 (2):214–223. doi:10.1002/cpt.205.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Keselman, H. J., J. Algina, and R. K. Kowalchuk. 2001. The analysis of repeated measures designs: A review. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 54 (1):1–20. doi:10.1348/000711001159357.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Liaw, A., and M. Wiener, (2002. Classification and regression by random Forest & others. R News 2 (3):18–22.
   Google Scholar
• Li, Z., B. J. Ridder, X. Han, W. W. Wu, J. Sheng, P. N. Tran, M. Wu, A. Randolph, R. H. Johnstone, G. R. Mirams, et al. 2019. Assessment of an in silico mechanistic model for proarrhythmia risk prediction under the CiPA initiative. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 105 (2):466–475. doi:10.1002/cpt.1184.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Liu, T., B. S. Brown, Y. Wu, C. Antzelevitch, P. R. Kowey, and G. X. Yan. 2006. Blinded validation of the isolated arterially perfused rabbit ventricular wedge in preclinical assessment of drug-induced proarrhythmias. Heart Rhythm: The Official Journal of the Heart Rhythm Society 3 (8):948–956. doi:10.1016/j.hrthm.2006.04.021.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Liu, T., J. Liu, H. R. Lu, H. Li, D. J. Gallacher, K. Chaudhary, Y. Wang, and G. X. Yan. 2021. Utility of normalized tdp score system in drug proarrhythmic potential assessment: A blinded in vitro study of CiPA drugs. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 109 (6):1606–1617. doi:10.1002/cpt.2133.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Liu, T., M. Traebert, H. Ju, W. Suter, D. Guo, P. Hoffmann, P. R. Kowey, and G. X. Yan. 2013. Differentiating electrophysiological effects and cardiac safety of drugs based on in vitro electrocardiogram: A blinded validation. Journal of Pharmacological and Toxicological Methods 68 (1):e23. doi:10.1016/j.hrthm.2012.06.030.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Murphy, K. P. 2012. Machine learning: a probabilistic perspective. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rampe, D., and A. M. Brown. 2013. A history of the role of the hERG channel in cardiac risk assessment. Journal of Pharmacological and Toxicological Methods 68 (1):13–22. doi:10.1016/j.vascn.2013.03.005.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sager, P. T., G. Gintant, J. R. Turner, S. Pettit, and N. Stockbridge. 2014. Rechanneling the cardiac proarrhythmia safety paradigm: A meeting report from the cardiac safety research consortium. American Heart Journal 167:292–300. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2013.11.004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shah, R. R. 2005. Drugs, QTc interval prolongation and final ICH E14 guideline: An important milestone with challenges ahead. Drug Safety 28 (11):1009–1028. doi:10.2165/00002018-200528110-00003.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stockbridge, N., J. Morganroth, R. R. Shah, and C. Garnett. 2013. Dealing with global safety issues: was the response to QT-liability of non-cardiac drugs well coordinated? Drug Safety 36:167–182. doi:10.1007/s40264-013-0016-z.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun, G., Z. Li, D. Rong, H. Zhang, X. Shi, W. Yang, W. Zheng, G. Sun, F. Wu, H. Cao, et al. 2021. Single-cell RNA sequencing in cancer: Applications, advances, and emerging challenges. Molecular Therapy - Oncolytics 21:183–206. doi:10.1016/j.omto.2021.04.001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Maaten, L., and G. Hinton. 2008. Visualizing Data using t-SNE. Journal of Machine Learning Research 9:2579–2605.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, L., Q. Xiao, and H. Xu. 2018. Optimal maximin L1-distance Latin hypercube designs based on good lattice point designs. Annals of Statistics 46:3741–3766. doi:10.1214/17-AOS1674.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xiao, Q., L. Wang, and H. Xu. 2019. Application of kriging models for a drug combination experiment on lung cancer. Statistics in Medicine 38 (2):236–246. doi:10.1002/sim.7971.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Xi, N. M., Y.-Y. Hsu, Q. Dang, and D. P. Huang. 2022. Statistical learning in preclinical drug proarrhythmic assessment. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 32 (3):450–473. doi:10.1080/10543406.2022.2065505.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Xi, N. M., and J. J. Li. 2021a. Benchmarking computational doublet-detection methods for single-cell RNA sequencing data. Cell Systems 12 (2):176–194.e6. doi:10.1016/j.cels.2020.11.008.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Xi, N. M., and J. J. Li. 2021b. Protocol for executing and benchmarking eight computational doublet-detection methods in single-cell RNA sequencing data analysis. STAR Protocols 2 (3):100699. doi:10.1016/j.xpro.2021.100699.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar